First off, if you are the Germans and hold lots of the green part of the map and the bunkers, it's impossible to attack the beach from the ships.

Secondly.why can't the ships look right? on the map, the Thomas Jefferson looks like a battleship with huge guns, when it was in fact a troop carrier and only492 feet long with 4 x 3" guns

The USS Texas on the map looks like a landing craft, but was in fact a New York-class battleship 573 feet long and had 10 x 14" guns on D Day she:

The initial bombardment commenced at 05:50, against the site of six 15 cm (5.9 in) guns, atop Pointe du Hoc

the U.S.S. Arkansas again looks like a landing craft on the map, but was a Wyoming-class battleship 562 feet long armed with 12 x 12" guns on d day she:

entered the Baie de la Seine on 6 June, and took up a position 4,000 yd (3,600 m) off "Omaha" beach. At 0552, Arkansas' guns opened fire. During the day, the venerable battleship underwent shore battery fire and air attacks.

ThirdlyWhy the hell can't the battleships bombard the German positions?

Every time I play this map you can only win by taking up the shore defence positions.

I've always said, if we were a historical website first and foremost, you'd have a pretty good argument for change. But history, geography, and other themes often bend to a mapmaker's vision (and the Foundry's vision as a community) of gameplay and aesthetic.

I'd say that the majority of our mapmakers are very interested in creating an accurate map in terms of the history or geography of their chosen setting, and incorporate this accuracy development into their production (check out any number of the current maps in production, and you'll find quite a bit of discussion about these elements).

In all, I think D-Day is a big enough theme that it could warrant more than one map, so if someone wanted to create a more historically accurate or realistic depiction of events, or a larger depiction of scenario as a whole, the Foundry would probably welcome it, assuming leet skillz were there.

My initial reaction to this thread is: too little too late. The maps are in development for a super long time so anyone who has problems with them has plenty of time to make suggestions/point out errors. Unless there were complaints about these aspects during the development process that were ignored, I believe that this may be a case of "tough rocks".

I agree the map could definitely use a revamp. the ships should have some guns able to fire into the german divisions , but no matter what the germans will have the advantage on the allies storming the beach, as in real life they took heavy casualties , theres no way around it. you dont wana be one of the men coming onto shore via boat, those fellows had a real hard time and i admire every one of em. the allied advantage is through their paratroopers, their should be more paratroop spots coming into german lines withe pillboxes and bunkers, maybe some planes and AA guns would be great and more realistic. but any D-day map is better than none i suppose.

Jippd wrote:I see no reason that maps shouldn't be changed if it improved them?

What would be better to have a bunch of B+ rated maps, or allow improvements that made every map an A+ if the community agreed to the changes.

I also agree that map is always decided by whoever grabs the most bunkers first

Is that inherently flawed? Most Classic games are decided if one person can secure Oceania soon . Each map has their own optimal strategy; I don't think that's a demonstration of a need for gameplay revision.

Jippd wrote:I see no reason that maps shouldn't be changed if it improved them?

What would be better to have a bunch of B+ rated maps, or allow improvements that made every map an A+ if the community agreed to the changes.

I also agree that map is always decided by whoever grabs the most bunkers first

Is that inherently flawed? Most Classic games are decided if one person can secure Oceania soon . Each map has their own optimal strategy; I don't think that's a demonstration of a need for gameplay revision.

BMO

I echo this. And say that because of the size of D-Day, it's much less a flaw of sorts than Oceania is on Classic.

Jippd wrote:I'm not sure if it is a flaw or not. I'm just saying that I think any map should be improved if it will improve game play and everyone agrees that it will.

Well, I agree with that statement. I don't think it would improve gameplay for this map.

What would? I think you think I said something should be changed but I didn't. My original post was just stating that I think that maps should be changed if it improves them. I then also made another statement saying that I agreed that the D-day map was decided by the bunkers. Two separate statements in one post.

D-day as is, is one of my favorite maps, if you are going to revamp it, then make an entirely new map, it would really stink to take a map some people really like the way it is to shift it to be historically accurate and change the gameplay. Just make a new map if you want somehting more "Accurate" to real life. I don't think it's fair to the mapmaker or to the process it took to get the map here. Also you can consider this, had this been brought up, WOULD the creator be forced to change the map to fit the standards? I would like to think a bit of creativity and the idea the mapmaker had would be respected and allowed to continue.

swimmerdude99 wrote:D-day as is, is one of my favorite maps, if you are going to revamp it, then make an entirely new map, it would really stink to take a map some people really like the way it is to shift it to be historically accurate and change the gameplay.

The map, if ever revamped would leave the gameplay alone. But I see no reason why a new map based on the D-Day landings that is more accurate could not be made.

Jippd wrote:I'm not sure if it is a flaw or not. I'm just saying that I think any map should be improved if it will improve game play and everyone agrees that it will.

Well, I agree with that statement. I don't think it would improve gameplay for this map.

What would? I think you think I said something should be changed but I didn't. My original post was just stating that I think that maps should be changed if it improves them. I then also made another statement saying that I agreed that the D-day map was decided by the bunkers. Two separate statements in one post.

I agree with this:

Jippd wrote:I'm not sure if it is a flaw or not. I'm just saying that I think any map should be improved if it will improve game play and everyone agrees that it will.

AND

I don't think D-Day fits that category for me. I wasn't saying that you wanted it changed.

based on all these posts , it might be an even better idea to start up a new D-day map completely. this was the largest invasion of europe ever and i think the possibilitys could be endless. Respect still shown for the time and effort put in by the peoples who made the original ,but a 2nd more accurate 'battle relevant' map for the hardcore ww2 fans , i think they would all love it and give alot of input. That would be alot of work , dunno if thers any brave souls out their willing to start from scratch...

swimmerdude99 wrote:D-day as is, is one of my favorite maps, if you are going to revamp it, then make an entirely new map, it would really stink to take a map some people really like the way it is to shift it to be historically accurate and change the gameplay. Just make a new map if you want somehting more "Accurate" to real life. I don't think it's fair to the mapmaker or to the process it took to get the map here. Also you can consider this, had this been brought up, WOULD the creator be forced to change the map to fit the standards? I would like to think a bit of creativity and the idea the mapmaker had would be respected and allowed to continue.